Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: These landscapes are important for a). pastoralism (Samburu indigenous people) and b). rangeland BD also has endangered charismatic species. Thus it is important for IPLC
Evidence B:The area has some wildlife species that are only found in that area in the whole world. One example is the grevy zebra.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Probably moderate as this is a dryland and carbon (trees, grass - esp perennial grasses) sources are more widely spaced and importance of below ground C2. Would be good to i/d which perrennial grasses will be restored when A. reficiens removed
Evidence B:The are is part of the savanna in northern Kenya which has maintained a specialized type of conservation to create equilibrium. This involves strategic seasonal movement from one area to another to maximize use of resources while sustaining the environment.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Conservancy is IPLC “owned” (land owned, though are national restrictions on how wildlife is used
Evidence B:The conservancy belongs to the IPLC but since it is part of a series of conservancies working together, there is involvement of persons who are not necessarily from the conservancy.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: This is part of a much larger North Rangelands Trust - which covers a very large area of important BD and landscapes - mostly occupied by pastoralists and private ranches. Thus lessons from this project could easily expanded
Evidence B:Yes the unique cultural significance of the area is adequately explained. See above.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: threats - climate change - increased drought and extreme events - exacerbated by locust invasions. Land use change - threats well elucidated in EoI
Evidence B:These are fragile ecosystems which have been created over long periods of time. This means that any major interruption in the use of any part of it is bound to upset the workings of the whole.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Active IPLC promotion through Community conservancies, and (if needed) Community Forest Assocs. Key to get right is balance of wildlife (and income) and livestock grazing patterns - esp in dry times - and how the two are reconciled
Evidence B:IPLC is at the core of the conservancy idea. The indigenous knowledge system of pastoralists is what makes protected areas adjacent to the conservancy viable in the long term
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Seems as though Gov well engaged - policy (national and county level), and management support (security, water etc.). But impacts of Covid on income and impacts of locusts will be a challenge. Importance of National Reserve (Samburu) close by is an important benefit (joint works, dispersal areas)
Evidence B:Both national and local government agencies provide partnership to the conservancy as they work closely together.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: A number have been initiated - conservancy itself is very important and then various management initiatives (governance, invasives, water)
Evidence B:Since the conservancy is part of a group of such structures working together, scaling up is possible. Northern Rangelands Trust acts like an umbrella for all of them.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: A number of projects relate directly to EoI, worry is scale (as the overall area is very large scale) as such interventions are often of a small pilot scale - therefore how to really go to scale
Evidence B:There is synergies with existing investment and there is compiementarity in all of them
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: My worry is scale of activities vs large scale of area. for example how to remove (without using Chemicals) A. reficiens and encourage grass re-growth (which spp??) - something I have done many years ago in Baringo. Water needs to be well planned for in context of effects on land condition. Charcoal is a major concern - destroying kilns - just creates poverty. Bio-gas - how can it go to scale??? - yes it is one option that should be explored. But also charcoal can be managed for (e.g. use of dead timber, plant for charcoal) and so have a fuelwood (whether charcoal or wood) management strategy that is socially and ecologically viable. This was explored in Turkana in the 1980 through a Turkana Forest Policy based on Turkana knowledge and institutions
Evidence B:They are well aligned. However, no details have been provided on how and to what extent indigenous governance structures have been utilized on a day to day basis.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Clean energy - develop a community owned management strategy; water must take into a/c potential impacts on surrounding vegetation
Evidence B:It does to a large extent. It would have been clearer if there was a time frame for each activity over time.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Necessary scale is v. large. How to move beyond Pilot - it can be done - but requires much thought during full proposal development
Evidence B:Largely so,but some of the threats cannot be fully addressed in the time frame since they may need a longer time.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Reasonably well aligned - though the challenge will be how to go to scale, for example say 100Ha of A. reficiens when there might be 100,000Ha of A. reficiens. For me real key is getting the governance and management systems in place - so invasives can be managed based on community action; water takes into account surrounding ecology et.c
Evidence B:Most of them are achievable, however some may need a longer time the community may not have control over, say climate chaage,
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: much of the co-financing are constrution works (which is OK) but needs to be seen in context of broader landcape management
Evidence B:Actual amounts are not mentioned, but there is USAID and Swedish International Development Agency are likely to be providing adequate amounts.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Will need strong strategy as to how to go to scale that is part of the proposal and also part of sustainability
Evidence B:Moderate and realistic.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: For me - how will peace and harmony be realized; how will families send kids to school for free, how will they sell grass seed and so forth. Hence moderately aligned. One key for me is how we balance and manage the tradeoffs between managing for conservation and managing for livelihoods
Evidence B:TCultural and livelihood practices are at the core of the ideas of the conservancy.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Many of the activities are short to medium term - would be good to see how management will i/c these activities into longer term strategies
Evidence B:The EOI does have clear ideas on how the project can be sustained since it has tourism activities. They also have long term commitments from some partners. Pastoralism is also said to create some needed income for sustainability to be achieved.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Appears well linked - though the proof will be in the “how”! and how will it be measured
Evidence B:The EOI seems to be aware of the necessary global environmental priorities, It is therefore likely to build upon it.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Often a challenge in such male dominated pastoral societies One way to address is to really understand roles/responsibilities/rights of men/women in different areas (food, water, house, different livestock management etc.); and then to see where the gaps are (e.g. power) as a basis for negotiating more equitable governance. Having XX% of board as women, employing women as casual labour is not real about equality and governance and can be seen as tokenistic
Evidence B:The EOI seems to be aware of what is provide in the Kenya constitution of 2019 and its objectives and activities reflect this knowledge.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: could have high potential but not clear at this stage
Evidence B:There is high potential demonstrated on paper, but again all the conservations in the area are likely to be learning from each other.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: IPLC led, though NRT (an NGO) will have a role as Kalama is part of the NRT
Evidence B:Fully led by IPLC organization with help being provided by Northern Conservation Trust.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: yes demonstrated but could be stronger in terms of who does what, and how what will be done. Is this the organizational structure of NRT or of Kalama or Girgir?? - as it looks conservation/KWS focused. Would like to see how the different officers in Kalama will implement
Evidence B:The organization is fully run by indigenous peoples .
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Not clear as to whether partners are IPLC or NGO, e.g. Grevy Trust = NGO
Evidence B:The conservancy is part of something like a consortium of conservancies working in unison with similar objectives.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: have the skills - but do they have the added skills to really develop up a). improved management and governance structures; b) ability to take pilot activities to scale?? - not clear
Evidence B:The organization seems to show that they have all the necessary skills and/or are able to access what they need elsewhere.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Weak on existing project implementation
Evidence B:It seems from past performance with other partners that they have demonstrated acceptable capacity level expertise.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Would need support in how to do this
Evidence B:The EOI seems to be aware of of necessary safeguards.